(I seriously just re-created this same thread with a different topic title, so that people would actually read this. It took me a long time to copy all of that down lol)

I know I am going to get a lot of flack for posting this, but I was reading and I found this skit, and have been desperately trying to find it online so I could paste it here. Now as an agnostic, I am not completely against religion, and am completely open to the concept of it. However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Anyways this skit is from a book called "Through a glass darkly", and is a fairly funny skit concerning the failing logic in religion (mostly christian religions).

-------------------------

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's @ss with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His @ss?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's @ss, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don"t, He'll kick the sh*t out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shakedown?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever he wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss his @ss."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the @ss?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's @ss with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's @ss often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the sh*t out of you."

Me: "Do yo know anyone who kissed Hank's @ss, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's @ss for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's @ss He'll kick the sh*t out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss Hank's @ss?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His @ss. Other times we kiss Karl's @ss, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's @ss. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His @ss, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl--

1) Kiss Hank's @ss and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.2) Use alcohol in moderation.3) Kick the sh*t out of people who aren't like you.4) Eat right.5) Hank dictated this list Himself.6) The moon is made of green cheese.7) Everything Hank says is right.8) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.9) Don't use alcohol.10) Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.11) Kiss Hank's @ss or He'll kick the sh*t out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the sh*t out of people just because they're different?"

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol,' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'the moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty much firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying, 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that ...."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." (Mary faints.)

John: (He catches Mary.) "Well, if I'd known you were one of those, I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the sh*t out of you I'll be there counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's @ss for you, you bunless, cut-weinered kraut-eater." With this , John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.

"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)

At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.

It seems to me that you're implying that there might be some independent and mature reasoning behind religiosity, but as clean and moderate as that sounds, you're completely mistaken. Religion derives its perpetuity from the manipulation of social ethics. Orthodox Christian upbringing does not allow for intellectual experimentation; once one's parents introduce to him the "model of behavior and belief" and the child sees no reason to rebel, he adopts it himself, never seriously considering the alternative - and in MANY cases conceiving of the alternative as evil, heretic, or sacrilegious. My deterministic view of the world prevents me from truly blaming these people, but I will hold that their beliefs ALMOST NEVER arrive from pure and unfettered reasoning. The only exception I might hold is for those few who debate the issue often like PCP, but even then I suspect there are complex and inscrutable factors which make their theological alignment inevitable.

So, long story short. I see Christians as indoctrinated people who's philosophical inquiry was greatly restrained by the boundaries of Christian ethics and the hereditary transfer of their parents' beliefs.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

WHAT???Faith can't be proven.. Religion can be!Is there a Buidest Religion? Yes or no!Is there a Hindu Religion? Yes or No!

At 5/5/2013 8:38:13 PM, phantom wrote:Do you really think this skit, humorous though it was, accurately depicts all religion?

However to be perfectly honest I have not found a convincing enough argument for it to make me actually say "yeah, that sounds perfectlly logical. Screw science."

Yeah, screw science. That's the aim of religion. Sure.

What's the difference between "screw science" and "I submit to the factual authority of the Bible because my mommy told me that I should"?

Is that your view of religion? First, being born into it has nothing to do with science. I'm sure plenty of religious parents teach actual science to their kids along with religion. Making it your aim to disregard science on religious grounds is also worse than being born into religious belief. Second, while being born into it is a huge reason for religiosity, it would be a misconception to say that's the sole reason people are. Kids accept religion because "their mommy tells them so." It would be absurd to say that's why mature people believe. Obviously, after becoming more rational, people question their beliefs and require more validity than before. Some, like me, start disbelieving. Others continue with their faith. They make a decision. I wouldn't deny that their upbringing had an effect on the decision, but no adult simply believes because he was told it was true by his parents.

You're also, quite obviously, generalizing. You couldn't possibly argue that all religious people were conditioned into belief by their parents. That's an extreme generalization. And as stated, inheriting belief has nothing to do with science and religion being at conflict.

It seems to me that you're implying that there might be some independent and mature reasoning behind religiosity, but as clean and moderate as that sounds, you're completely mistaken. Religion derives its perpetuity from the manipulation of social ethics. Orthodox Christian upbringing does not allow for intellectual experimentation; once one's parents introduce to him the "model of behavior and belief" and the child sees no reason to rebel, he adopts it himself, never seriously considering the alternative - and in MANY cases conceiving of the alternative as evil, heretic, or sacrilegious. My deterministic view of the world prevents me from truly blaming these people, but I will hold that their beliefs ALMOST NEVER arrive from pure and unfettered reasoning. The only exception I might hold is for those few who debate the issue often like PCP, but even then I suspect there are complex and inscrutable factors which make their theological alignment inevitable.

So, long story short. I see Christians as indoctrinated people who's philosophical inquiry was greatly restrained by the boundaries of Christian ethics and the hereditary transfer of their parents' beliefs.

I'm sure there are no beliefs you hold that were passed down by your culture and family.

And believe it or not, a lot of us crazy ole theists have logical reasons for believing in what we do. Maybe no logical to you, but then nothing is logical to you that could possibly contradict your obviously perfect beliefs amiright?

And I LOVE the assumption that science and religion can't coexist. Rofl.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

WHAT???Faith can't be proven.. Religion can be!Is there a Buidest Religion? Yes or no!Is there a Hindu Religion? Yes or No!

I know you mean well, Dogknox -or at least I sincerely hope you do. But you're out of your depth here; and I think you know it.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

Will you quit your posturing and address the argument that was forwarded to you?

"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

Will you quit your posturing and address the argument that was forwarded to you?

Posturing? Bah... lol... what will be the utility of my doing so? I think that even if I spent the time typing up a five or six paragraph response, it would be to little avail. Am I wrong?

(Btw. the astute academic would, if he didn't know what terms like "normative" meant, would search for himself.)

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

In the sense that nothing can be 100% certain of proof/disproof, in the sense that certain things can't be proven or disproven, or in another sense?

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

That does not mean that we should not take a stance on them. Do you take stances on whether or not Bigfoot exists? Can you prove that free will exists? If not, how do you justify moral evaluations?

The default response to a question regarding the existence of something is "No". The burden of proof is on those who posit existence.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Nicely worded.

Thanks. I try... sort of. I was really drunk when I wrote that last night though... so yeah.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

In the sense that nothing can be 100% certain of proof/disproof, in the sense that certain things can't be proven or disproven, or in another sense?

There some (positive) kinds of claims that can be proven. Other kinds of claims (normative claims) cannot be proven. Religion is necessarily normative.

At 5/5/2013 9:32:27 PM, YYW wrote:The skit was amusing, but to the topic:

Religion is neither true nor false. It is; which is to say that it is normative, that it cannot be proven or disproven, falsified or verified. It is. No more or less. It's an intellectual crime to think otherwise.

Your vague language is the only thing making this statement not seem as absurd as it actually is. When we assess the truth of "religion" what exactly are we assessing? Religion is not a single claim but a set of claims, each of which has propositional truth value. Each such claim can be evaluated, proven, and disproven.

When you get to university, you will learn (I hope) about kinds of claims. You will learn what kinds of claims can be proven, and how. You will learn how some kinds of claims are not provable, and why. But you will learn all of this then. I am far to drunk tonight to teach it to you now.

That does not mean that we should not take a stance on them.

You can have any opinion you like.

Do you take stances on whether or not Bigfoot exists?

Yes. My stance is I don't care.

Can you prove that free will exists?

I can give you my opinion, and you can give me yours. That's about all we can do.

If not, how do you justify moral evaluations?

That's a much bigger question than I can give a pithy one sentence response to. Is morality normative? Yes. Can we ground normative claims? Sure, but grounding is not proof. The difference is significant.

The default response to a question regarding the existence of something is "No". The burden of proof is on those who posit existence.

There some (positive) kinds of claims that can be proven. Other kinds of claims (normative claims) cannot be proven. Religion is necessarily normative.

Many religious claims are positive, however. For instance, if someone posits that Zeus will strike any oathbreaker with a thunderbolt, then we can do an empirical test. Of course, most religions have given up making such testable predictions, for precisely the reason that the Greek Pantheon did: it tends not to work out. So the wording gets changed: lightning bolts are Zeus's rage against oathbreakers, but not all oathbreakers get zapped. Or some such.

Many religious claims are empirical truth claims. The only stuff that isn't (arguably) is the moral stuff. But the existence of powerful entities, the nature of the world, how the universe came into being--these are empirical, positive claims about how the universe is, even if not all are testable.